Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of nonlower calyceal 10–20 mm size kidney stone

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
P. Roy, D. Sarkar, V. Jalan, D. Pal
{"title":"Comparative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of nonlower calyceal 10–20 mm size kidney stone","authors":"P. Roy, D. Sarkar, V. Jalan, D. Pal","doi":"10.4103/UROS.UROS_134_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Urolithiasis is a common medical condition and the treatment is mainly minimally invasive methods. There exists no specific guidelines for the treatment of radio-opaque solitary non lower calyceal kidney stones of 10–20 mm in literature and no head to head study comparing both the procedures. Hence, this study was performed to have a specific guide for the treatment of such stones. Materials and Methods: This study, included all patients aged >18 years, with solitary radiopaque calculi of 10–20 mm size in upper or middle calyx or pelvis of the kidney. A total of 105 patients were assigned to receive extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treatment of stone were enrolled in the study and the results were compared in terms of retreatment, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. Results: The SFR was statistically higher in the mini PCNL group for all locations. The SFR for the ESWL group was low after 1st session; however, it increased with multiple sessions. We had a total of 9 complications in both groups, which was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: This study showed that the mini PCNL is a viable, safe option for the treatment of 10–20 mm non lower calyceal stones, having superior SFRs compared to ESWL with statistically insignificant complications. It can be offered as first-line option for the management of such stones.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"32 1","pages":"83 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/UROS.UROS_134_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose: Urolithiasis is a common medical condition and the treatment is mainly minimally invasive methods. There exists no specific guidelines for the treatment of radio-opaque solitary non lower calyceal kidney stones of 10–20 mm in literature and no head to head study comparing both the procedures. Hence, this study was performed to have a specific guide for the treatment of such stones. Materials and Methods: This study, included all patients aged >18 years, with solitary radiopaque calculi of 10–20 mm size in upper or middle calyx or pelvis of the kidney. A total of 105 patients were assigned to receive extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treatment of stone were enrolled in the study and the results were compared in terms of retreatment, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. Results: The SFR was statistically higher in the mini PCNL group for all locations. The SFR for the ESWL group was low after 1st session; however, it increased with multiple sessions. We had a total of 9 complications in both groups, which was statistically insignificant. Conclusion: This study showed that the mini PCNL is a viable, safe option for the treatment of 10–20 mm non lower calyceal stones, having superior SFRs compared to ESWL with statistically insignificant complications. It can be offered as first-line option for the management of such stones.
体外冲击波碎石术与小型经皮肾镜取石术治疗10-20 mm非下肾盏结石的比较研究
目的:尿石症是一种常见病,治疗方法以微创为主。文献中没有关于治疗10 - 20mm放射不透明孤立性非下盏肾结石的具体指南,也没有对两种方法进行头部比较的研究。因此,本研究旨在为此类结石的治疗提供一个具体的指导。材料和方法:本研究纳入了所有年龄在bb0 - 18岁之间,肾上、中萼或骨盆中有10 - 20mm大小的孤立性不透光结石的患者。共有105例患者被分配接受体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)或微型经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)治疗结石,并在再治疗、结石清除率(SFR)和并发症方面对结果进行比较。结果:所有部位的小PCNL组SFR均有统计学差异。ESWL组的SFR在第一次治疗后较低;然而,随着会话次数的增加,它会增加。两组共发生9例并发症,差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究表明,微型PCNL是治疗10 - 20mm非下盏结石的可行、安全的选择,与ESWL相比,其SFRs优于ESWL,并发症统计学上无统计学意义。它可以作为管理此类结石的一线选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信